Jones v. Lane

Fourth Circuit

Jones v. Lane

546 F. App'x 299

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 2013

DocketNo. 13-7243

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 546 F. App'x 299 (Jones v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Lane, 546 F. App'x 299 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Dean Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Jones’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Lane, No. 1:12-cv-01033-JMC, 2013 WL 3270449 (D.S.C. June 26, 2013). We grant Jones’ motion to file a supplemental informal reply brief and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Dean Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Jones’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Lane, No. 1:12-cv-01033-JMC, 2013 WL 3270449 (D.S.C. June 26, 2013). We grant Jones’ motion to file a supplemental informal reply brief and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F. App'x 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-lane-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack